I think this is a very simplistic answer to what Patrik is trying to argue for in his recent facebook "provocations". As an architect your power is limited. Koolhaas also worked in china, dubai, libya and many other places, engaging with dictatorships which do not respect human rights etc. I can add many other famous architects to the list. Probably many migrant workers died while constructing his buildings. I dont think its a problem architects can solve, its not in our power to change a regime. As Foucault said, its not the parlaiment building that makes the democracy - the political agency of architecture is limited.Casa del fascio in Como was also constructed under a fascist regime - you can like it or not, but it is widely recognized as a contribution to humanity, visited and studied by hundreds of scholars and students every year. At the very least, this dictatorships will leave a masterpiece of architecture behind in history, instead of the generic crap we see all around us. One contribution to humanity from an inhumane regime. I respect Patrik for having the courage to explain the reality of the world we live in to a seemingly innocent and naive audience who believe in "charity" - read some Zizek to discover what is wrong with the concept. Architects without borders should indeed never win a pritzker price - because it's not about how "good" you are, but how good your architecture is.If you are really so politically engaged, then be consequent and also dismiss Frank Gehry, Koolhaas, Jean Nouvel, Reiser Umemoto, SOM, KPF, etc... And maybe dismiss Zumthor as well because he is not a vegetarian or doesnt donate to a charity.

March 26, 2014 at 1:17 AM

Anonymous said...

Yet no one is taking about peter eisenman and wolf prix, which if you think about it, is Patrols point. Too easily some would prefer to defend humanitarianism to feel good about themselves, rather than discussing innovation. Shigeru's work is ok, but innovative? No.

March 27, 2014 at 5:20 AM

Dear Anonymous defender(s) of Patrik Schumacher,

Both you and Patrik have a very limited understanding of some basic principles of argumentation and simple logic. I would recommend you both take a course in critical thinking. Patrik made an argument that was embarrassingly ill-structured and ill-informed (especially considering his stature and academic positions). I unraveled it and demonstrated how it would work if I were to use the same false arguments against him and Zaha. My response was simple, but far from simplistic, but still neither you nor Patrik seem to get it.

To make matters worse you introduce even more absurd and implausible argumentation on top of Patrik’s catastrophe of a statement: So now I will have to first unravel your illogical assumptions and faulty line of reasoning before I can even begin to respond.

So, here goes: Firstly you made the following statements:

Koolhaas also worked in china, dubai, libya and many other places, engaging with dictatorships which do not respect human rights etc. I can add many other famous architects to the list. Probably many migrant workers died while constructing his buildings.

and

If you are really so politically engaged, then be consequent and also dismiss Frank Gehry, Koolhaas, Jean Nouvel, Reiser Umemoto, SOM, KPF, etc... And maybe dismiss Zumthor as well because he is not a vegetarian or doesn't donate to a charity.

When you point out the ills of other architects as your defense, your argument comes down to this:

“Hey you should not criticize Patrik, because he is not the only one doing it”

That's not a defense! Doing something wrong because everyone else is doing it does not make it OK! it is morally reprehensible!

If every crook that was caught red handed was let off the hook because they pointed their bloody fingers at the other guy, then no one would ever be held accountable for anything.

Of course the vegetarian thing I took as a joke (although I would have gone with vegan). But seriously though, Patrik uses that same schtick (of jumping to extremes) so often that I have to address it in a serious way too. His arguments often take the form:

“its either you work for murderous dictators or you are a charity worker” (or in your case vegetarian)

...as if those are the only two choices one has as a starving sarchitect in this world. If you say to Patrik

“Hey working for Qaddafi is wrong!...”

His standard reply to such questions sounds something like this:

Enough with all that politically correct crap!!...What!!!... So you want me to be Mother Theresa now?

This guy is a fucking genius... he should be teaching at Harvard. Oh wait a minute...he is teaching at Harvard (sic)

This brings me to the other falsehood that Patrik and his mindless defenders use. He often blends humanitarian architecture with charity or with political correctness. Another falsehood that can be simply refuted with a dictionary.Politically Correct is defined as agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people

Charity is defined as generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helplessHumanitarian means having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.

So humanitarian architecture can be seen as socially responsive. It is one that takes into consideration the socio-political conditions of the building's context into consideration before, during and after the design process much in the same way parametric architecture takes the sun’s position, the views etc into consideration as design parameters in creating a form or shape.

Humanitarian architecture takes the premise that architecture is first and foremost something that is in the service of greater society and the people that use it. It is conscious that architecture has the capacity to be a weapon and propaganda tool in the service of oppressive regimes and avoids such scenarios.

This kind of thinking and approach to architecture has nothing to do with charity. Not that charity is a demeaning thing or beneath the dignity architecture as Patrik implies. So whether Zumthor or any architects donate to charity or not is besides the point.

Sure, much of humanitarian thinking in architecture is politically correct, but one does not think and act this way to be politically correct. Not killing babies is also politically correct, but one does not refrain from killing babies just to be politically correct...At least I hope so. Patrik carelessly throwing around the term politically correct is just the baseless name calling of an inconsiderate man who seriously needs to go to the Wizard of OZ and find his conscience.

You can tell a lot about the way a person thinks by they kind of questions they ask. For instance, when Partik asks:

"does this mean that those who aspire to win the Pritzker - or the nobel prize in physics - have to add humanitarian charity work into the mix?"

You can clearly see he has got his morals all backwards! You don't think in a humanitarian way or give to charity in order to get an award. An award is something that is given as a recognition for the things that you do out of your passion. If you add humanitarian or charity work into the mix for the purposes of getting any award, then you don't deserve it.

You (the mindless defenders of Patrik) seem to just repeat every stupid blurb he says without filtering it through your noodles:

Patrik often blurts out phrases like “innovation over political correctness” and subsequently you come out like Neanderthal-yes-men echoing the same thing “Oh ahh umm… yeah... innovation over political correctness... uuuh..yeah…” without questioning what it means for even a second.

He makes it sound as though socially responsible thinking and innovation are antithetical to each other or that their combination were against some immutable laws of physics: that if you make socially responsible architecture it would create some kind of black hole and suck all the innovation out of the universe and vise versa. This is another example of Patrik’s jumping to extremes (another variation of the slippery slope fallacy).

Socially responsible design and thinking is the motor behind most of the technology and innovation that we enjoy today and is continuing to drive innovation in and outside of architecture. It was the need to create better quality housing and alleviate the health hazards that were prevalent in old tenements and slums that lead to inventions like the use of steel in building, the elevator, zoning restrictions to allow light and air into apartments and requirements for public spaces in dense urban situations. It is the motor behind the sustainable movement, wind and solar energies, and much more. Outside of architecture, it is what is leading to innovative cures for disease like cancer and diabetes. Digital technologies are simply tools that aid the motor that is called humanitarian thinking - not the other way around. I could go on and on but my fingers would be sore.

Its just confounding that anyone could argue that humanitarianism equals a rejection of innovation or that one would have to choose between one or the other. Its like arguing that you can't have water and wetness at the same time. How could you ever let him convince you of such a thing?... What a mind job!!!

Patrik and Zaha hang their hats on the idea that architects are powerless in changing dictators. Sure we have limited powers as architects, no one ever asked any stararchitect to use their Jedi powers that they seem to have over architecture students to stop dictators. Never-the-less Patrik and Zaha constantly defend themselves from hallucinatory detractors by saying “it is not in our power to stop dictators”.

No one is asking them to do that!!!

As architects we may not be able to stop the atrocities that dictators do, but we always have the power to decline being willing and participating agents in their propaganda machines that spills the blood of innocents.

Qaddafi did not put a gun to their head and say design for me or else. He offered them a lot of money and they graciously accepted it. Zaha and Patrik stand to gain financially by taking the inhumane and unremorseful stand that they are taking, so I can understand the motive behind their arguments, but it boggles my mind why anyone else would defend them.

Moving on to the next set of baseless and wild assumption:

Architects without borders should indeed never win a pritzker prize - because it's not about how "good" you are, but how good your architecture is.

I did not suggest Architects without borders be given the prize for their good deeds or to feel good about myself. I suggested them because the Pritzker mandates that the prize:

honor a living architect/s whose built work demonstrates ( among other things) consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture. (do yourself a favor and take 20 seconds and read the whole thing at the Pritzker website here)

Architects without borders and Architecture for humanity are among the fewest architectural organizations in the world that makes it their mission to consistently make significant contributions to humanity through architecture.

If you want to call that politically correct crap, go ahead, but don't blame me. Direct that to the founders of the Pritzker Prize. They are the one’s who wrote it!If you want to blame me for anything, blame me for reminding the Pritzker director Martha Thorne that the clause existed. I reminded her about this back in 2012 and urged her to honor this part of the prize (See my letter to her in note 91. Pritzker Talk). Now 2 years later we are seeing a movement in that direction. As I said back then, they are making baby steps, but never the less in the right direction. Perhaps in 20 years we may see an organization like Architecture for Humanity or Architects without Borders being recognized for their humanitarian contribution to the world through architecture.

"dictatorships will leave a masterpiece of architecture behind in history, instead of the generic crap we see all around us?"

Are you seriously advocating a dictatorship based model for the future of architecture?

Architecture is a concretization and a confirmation of who we are as a society, our hopes, our dreams, how we see ourselves, what we value most, how we live and how we treat each other. It is a physical manifestation of our social and political condition.

What does architecture that was created in an oppressive society represent?

What does the architecture that was created in a free society represent?

If you live in a free and democratic society, then of course it is easy to dismiss the freedoms that we have as politically correct crap. But lets put you in Qatar to work under the conditions of the builders of Zaha's stadium and see what kind of tune you would be singing then.

Sure a lot of the buildings we point to in the history books as great architecture were done by oppressive empires. But are you really saying that such architecture is worth the cost of human life and suffering?

Would you yourself undergo great suffering or volunteer your own life in the cause building a great looking or technologically innovative building?

Do you think Casa del fascio (as you mentioned) was worth the human sacrifice and suffering that it took to make it possible?

If you could, would you yourself live under a fascist regime to make that building a reality?

I-don’t-think-you-would!!!

Architecture that was designed and built under cruel and inhumane conditions is an expression of injustice and can never be truly great architecture no matter how innovative or flashy looking. If you think otherwise then you must be kidding yourself or you have been reading too much of that damn stupid book you mentioned.

I would suggest that you take a basic course on Critical Thinking or at minimum familiarize yourself with this list of common argumentative fallacies and re-read that book. Be sure to get a case of yellow highlighters and highlight every false arguments you find. And if you still value it after that, be sure to keep it a safe distance from anyone looking for the yellow pages.

I apologize for the tone, but please understand, it is coming from a place of deep caring. Even though I do not know you or haven't met you, I can interpret a lot about you from your writing. I can tell that you are most likely a student or recent graduate that is taken up by the ideas of Patrik and the seductive forms of Zaha’s architecture. My real ire is not with you but mostly with Patrik and Zaha’s behavior and at the architecture schools that entertain them. Firstly for letting people like Patrik Schumacher come in contact with you just because he is famous. You (anonymous defender of Patrik) are among our most precious resources (As students you are our future). Secondly, I am disappointed with your school for not teaching critical thinking. This should be prerequisite course for all incoming freshman. Thirdly, I am perpetually bemused at the culture prevalent in architecture schools for creating an environment where students are forcefully discouraged from questioning their professors.

Anyway, I don’t expect to convince you with this note, but I do hope that I have planted a seed of reason in your head that will help you to question some of the jargon that is coming your way. This blog will always be here for you should you ever wake up from that dreadful cult and decide to come over from the dark side.Why don't you consider it? Shoot me an email and I will personally lend you a helping hand. Meanwhile, below this note are some references that will help you get acquainted with some of the basics of critical thinking.

Best Regards,Conrad NewelNOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECTLiberating Minds Since August 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is the first video in a series by Aaron Dewald called Critical Thinking

3
comments:

Anonymous
said...

Schumacher is just shooting himself in the foot. Someone wins an award, and he just takes that opportunity to point out more problems with the Hadid firm. It's unfortunate that they are getting some bad press, but it would be a better idea to stop bringing that up.He might have a legitimate concern, or he might just be manipulative and trying to justify himself and Hadid in the face of criticism. Either way, after reading that totally UNRELATED Foucault quote in that comment, it's clear he is making unintended consequences by promoting his stupid ideas. His argument is a far removed bastard offspring of some sort of fact. In order for us to make "significant contributions to humanity", and atleast to our own field, we need to be able to stay in track and in focus in our dialogue on architecture. It is very retrogressive when demagogy and trends distract from the bigger picture. We should be sophisticated and critical thinkers. Corbusier was brash when he proposed to raze Paris in order to save it. That's the flaw of his statements. He is so frustrated with his own issues that partly through his own comments and partly through some misinterpretation, it seems like that humanitarianism as a whole is some sort of plebeian concept. I don't think that's what he really wants. Something is happening where Patrik is trying to make "humanitarian work" a new word like "green building". It's gauche. So in his logic, he can manipulate it so it seems that because ZHA is not humanitarian, they are therefore not gauche, which makes them superior. Fine, they are superior, who cares. Give them a million Pritker Prizes, because anyways it's actually something more akin to the Academy Awards rather than the Nobel Prize. (Also one minor flawed logic, if he is so unhappy with the Pritzker, why is he glorifying it by comparing it to the Nobel?) Give them any award they want so Patrik Schumaker can stop encouraging designers to be pricks.

For the sake of our community, we have already gone through one terrible tragedy and we should be vigilant to not allow it to happen again. The "green" trend is that tragedy. Some of the basic principles and issues concerning the design and construction of buildings got packed together and wrapped up into some strange gimmick monster, and what we have to show for that is proposals with skyscrapers in the form of a windmill, because by some logic that is "green." Now many of those principles are taboo, because "green" is a distraction to the conversation and far too unsophisticated for the work that we need to accomplish. Schumacher is beginning to do that packing together of humanitarianism into a trendy concept in order to validate his own work. He has become the common denominator where people are now talking about Gaddafi and temporary shelters as if they were talking about the same topic. It is important to keep the two separated even if they are a bit related. Once they get lumped together, that's how we end up with people starting to view humanitarianism as an option. You can be for or against it. That's so stupid! I mentioned before Corbu and Paris. If the conversation was about how humanitarian he was, that would be totally loosing the point! We need to be dedicated to our craft, and certain things should be a given. Just because ZHA is having some issues, don't bring everyone else down to your level. I don't want people to become polarized and I don't want any actual good work or great opportunities to be missed because designers are now going be too afraid of appearing too "humanitarian".

Hadid and Schumacher should be responsible as prominent figures and guide architects into critical thinking about real issues. That aside. I also really cannot support Schumacher's comments because based on ZHA's qualities, he has no right to criticize Shigeru Ban. I am really not sure what the firm has contributed to the world that could possibly outweigh their moral ambiguity. Their projects are half baked representations of an already murky philosophy. Part of what could be considered as innovative would be contructing complicated forms, but that's not really valid if they are not actually constructed well. What's left of what they have to say is just not convincing to me. Something about curves.

One final side comment : I don't really agree with the idea that Schumacher is being "old world", it's an insult that could be read as a compliment. It sort of opens up to compare himo a historical figure, possibly without even thinking about the history. It's a justification. The whole dictator talk is also similar. Old world, dictator, masterpiece. It's all boiling down to something, where we can begin to think that ZHA is building the Pyramids of Giza of our age. Hmm, no. Even when compared to the "old world" or history, they might be even worse. For those old regimes we now view as awful people, there are of course some very celebrated buildings. However, I cannot really think of any architect who built across so many countries for so many controversial regimes that they did not even relate to. For the Casa Del Fascio in Italy, it was built by an Italian Rationalist. Opposite to the moral ambiguity that ZHA say is necessary, that architect was probably actually in political alignment with the Fascists. Since we are talking about that time, there are a few architects that might be more important to talk about. I admit this is a bit of a weak example, but Mies Van der Rohe actually did not build for his glorious dictator. So, the argument that architects have been always building for foreign dictactors cannot be supported 100% by history. I can understand that because of the current economy that many of the construction boom areas are in areas of questionable leadership. For smaller, unknown firms, they probably deserve a pass. For the most influential firms to carry on though, turning a blind eye. It sets a bad standard, and is really unproductive for the rest. I don't think it's even a naive argument. Those firms are just being lazy and uncreative if they cannot land jobs in respectable places. If they are the best, they should be doing the best, and they shouldn't rely on people quoting Zizek to defend their failure.